can weed kill you?

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

Ah! But people with enlaged hearts should only attempt to exercise under a doctor's guidance because, yes, they are prone to fall over dead if not properly treated.

Exactly! So we don't conclude exercise causes cardiac arrest, we reach a different conclusion.

Oh My God! The NORML for lunch bunch is quoting C. Everett Koop! That is soooooo wrong on so many levels.

Is your complaint with NORML or with Koop?

First of all the quote attributed to Dr. Koop was actually in referrence to cancers related to second hand smoke.

Here is the quote:

US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210, but were unable to cause cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco.

Where in that quote did you find second hand smoke and only second hand smoke?

Second, C. Everett Koop was hardly a world class expert on the carcinogenicity of tobacco. Before becoming Surgeon General he was a community hospital based General Surgeon with some serious political connections.

Okay, you're more qualified that Koop.

Third most American tobacco products aren't even American anymore. In the 1970s American tobacco companies began shafting American farmers by buying foreign tobacco, Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Turkish, and etc. Farmers in these parts of the world are more likely to use "natural" fertilizers.

Proof?

Forth, it's common knowledge in the medical community that most of the carcinogenicity of tobacco comes from chemical carcinogens. If you want to debate that fact with me go find some quotes from reputable medical sources, like the American Cancer Society, not from doper websites.

Koop isn't good enough for you? How about Ravenholt?

Finally, since most of our food is being grown on the same fertilizers used on (American) tobacco, why is it that gastric cancer has actually greatly decreased in the past fifty years?

The link offered an explanation, but do you have proof the same fertilisers are being used on food? If so, read the explanation offered in the link.

In the US, prior to WW1, most tobacco was consumed as cigars or chewing tobacco. Cigarettes were considered to somewhat degenerate. Doughboys picked up the cigarette habit in Europe and brought it home with them. The rise in Lung Ca after WW1 follows the rise in the popularity of cigarettes in the US.

If cigars and cigarettes were using the same tobacco, what's the difference? The increased use of radioactive fertiliser? Perhaps we'd see actual cases of pot induced cancer if pot was grown with the same radioactive fertilisers, but this is hardly proof of your assertion that pot is roughly equal to tobacco wrt cancer, just the opposite... You've attacked the messenger and ignored the message...

[JCG]

"Not necessarily and not that I know of". That's it.

[Odin]

Dr. Strangelove, eukaryotic organisms, like ourselves, have much better DNA-repair mechanisms than bacteria. also, a mutation only causes cancer if it is a cell division-regulating gene that is damaged. So I think the bacterial tests arn't worth sh*t.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Drinking lots of alcohol in one sitting causes drunkenness.

So drinking alcohol does not cause drunkenness? Does that then mean you can drink a 20 servings of alcohol and not get drunk, since alcohol doesn't cause drunkeness... seeing as 'lot' is entirely subjective and I may define it as 21 drinks?

"Causes" cancer is not the same as increases the probablity

Actually, it can be:

A cause is an agent or condition that permits the occurrence of an effect or leads to a result:

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

'permit[ing] the occurrence of an effect' is the same as increasing the probability.

Their argument is that pot reduces motivation in people even when they are not under the influence. Does sleep reduce motivation? Of course not.

If they use sedatives enough, sure, just like with alcohol. It can alter brain chemistry. Also, I was not aware that 'sleep' is considered a sedative, in fact I didn't know sleeping was a drug in the first place .

I say "A" causes "B" then it is logical to conclude "A" causes "B"

And it is also logical to conclude that "A" is a cause for "B". Just because something causes something else, doesn't mean it is the only cause. Other factors play into it. As KH said the common usage of 'cause' allows people to say tobacco causes cancer without meaning that everyone who smokes a single cigarette will get cancer.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

So drinking alcohol does not cause drunkenness? Does that then mean you can drink a 20 servings of alcohol and not get drunk, since alcohol doesn't cause drunkeness... seeing as 'lot' is entirely subjective and I may define it as 21 drinks?

Didn't I just answer that?

Actually, it can be:

A cause is an agent or condition that permits the occurrence of an effect or leads to a result:

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

'permit[ing] the occurrence of an effect' is the same as increasing the probability.

No it isn't. "Leads to a result" means there is a result and permitting the occurence doesn't mean the cause "might" permit the occurence..

If they use sedatives enough, sure, just like with alcohol. It can alter brain chemistry. Also, I was not aware that 'sleep' is considered a sedative, in fact I didn't know sleeping was a drug in the first place .

I never said sleep was a drug, but sleep is a sedated condition brought on by fatigue. Are people motivated when asleep? Has someone proven this alteration in brain chemistry is the cause of an alleged reduction or removal of motivation?

And it is also logical to conclude that "A" is a cause for "B".

You're changing the words, I didn't say "A" is a cause for "B", I said "A" causes "B".

Just because something causes something else, doesn't mean it is the only cause.

So?

Other factors play into it. As KH said the common usage of 'cause' allows people to say tobacco causes cancer without meaning that everyone who smokes a single cigarette will get cancer.

Common or not, that assertion is false. If you say tobacco causes cancer and millions of people use tobacco and don't get cancer, there's something wrong with your assertion.